Overriding FUS autoregulation in mice triggers gain-of-toxic dysfunctions in RNA metabolism and autophagy-lysosome axis

Abstract

Mutations in coding and non-coding regions of FUS cause amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The latter mutations may exert toxicity by increasing FUS accumulation. We show here that broad expression within the nervous system of wild-type or either of two ALS-linked mutants of human FUS in mice produces progressive motor phenotypes accompanied by characteristic ALS-like pathology. FUS levels are autoregulated by a mechanism in which human FUS downregulates endogenous FUS at mRNA and protein levels. Increasing wild-type human FUS expression achieved by saturating this autoregulatory mechanism produces a rapidly progressive phenotype and dose-dependent lethality. Transcriptome analysis reveals mis-regulation of genes that are largely not observed upon FUS reduction. Likely mechanisms for FUS neurotoxicity include autophagy inhibition and defective RNA metabolism. Thus, our results reveal that overriding FUS autoregulation will trigger gain-of-function toxicity via altered autophagy-lysosome pathway and RNA metabolism function, highlighting a role for protein and RNA dyshomeostasis in FUS-mediated toxicity.

Data availability

RNA-seq data have been deposited in NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus with the GEO series accession number GSE125125.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shuo-Chien Ling

    Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    For correspondence
    shuochien@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0300-8812
  2. Somasish Ghosh Dastidar

    Neurology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Seiya Tokunaga

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Wan Yun Ho

    Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Kenneth Lim

    Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Hristelina Ilieva

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Philippe A Parone

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Sheue-Houy Tyan

    Department of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Tsemay M Tse

    Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Jer-Cherng Chang

    Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Oleksandr Platoshyn

    Department of Anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Ngoc B Bui

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Anh Bui

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Anne Vetto

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Shuying Sun

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Melissa McAlonis-Downes

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Joo Seok Han

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Debbie Swing

    Mouse Cancer Genetics Program, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Katannya Kapeli

    Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Gene W Yeo

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Stem Cell Program, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  21. Lino Tessarollo

    Mouse Cancer Genetics Program, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6420-772X
  22. Martin Marsala

    Department of Anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  23. Christopher E Shaw

    Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  24. Greg Tucker-Kellogg

    Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  25. Albert R La Spada

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6151-2964
  26. Clotilde Lagier-Tourenne

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  27. Sandrine Da Cruz

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  28. Don W Cleveland

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    For correspondence
    dcleveland@ucsd.edu
    Competing interests
    Don W Cleveland, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Funding

National Medical Research Council (NMRC/OFIRG/0001/2016)

  • Shuo-Chien Ling

Ministry of Education - Singapore (MOE2016-T2-1-024)

  • Shuo-Chien Ling

National Institutes of Health (R01 AG033082)

  • Albert R La Spada

Wellcome

  • Christopher E Shaw

National Institutes of Health (R01 NS041648)

  • Albert R La Spada

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All studies were carried out under protocols approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and the National University of Singapore (NUS), and were in compliance with Association for Assessment of Laboratory Animal Care guidelines for animal use. All studies were performed in such a manner as to minimize group size and animal suffering. The approved NUS protocol numbers are BR17-0928 and R16-0954.

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 3,689
    views
  • 771
    downloads
  • 61
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Shuo-Chien Ling
  2. Somasish Ghosh Dastidar
  3. Seiya Tokunaga
  4. Wan Yun Ho
  5. Kenneth Lim
  6. Hristelina Ilieva
  7. Philippe A Parone
  8. Sheue-Houy Tyan
  9. Tsemay M Tse
  10. Jer-Cherng Chang
  11. Oleksandr Platoshyn
  12. Ngoc B Bui
  13. Anh Bui
  14. Anne Vetto
  15. Shuying Sun
  16. Melissa McAlonis-Downes
  17. Joo Seok Han
  18. Debbie Swing
  19. Katannya Kapeli
  20. Gene W Yeo
  21. Lino Tessarollo
  22. Martin Marsala
  23. Christopher E Shaw
  24. Greg Tucker-Kellogg
  25. Albert R La Spada
  26. Clotilde Lagier-Tourenne
  27. Sandrine Da Cruz
  28. Don W Cleveland
(2019)
Overriding FUS autoregulation in mice triggers gain-of-toxic dysfunctions in RNA metabolism and autophagy-lysosome axis
eLife 8:e40811.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40811

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40811

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Sandra P Cárdenas-García, Sundas Ijaz, Alberto E Pereda
    Research Article Updated

    Most nervous systems combine both transmitter-mediated and direct cell–cell communication, known as ‘chemical’ and ‘electrical’ synapses, respectively. Chemical synapses can be identified by their multiple structural components. Electrical synapses are, on the other hand, generally defined by the presence of a ‘gap junction’ (a cluster of intercellular channels) between two neuronal processes. However, while gap junctions provide the communicating mechanism, it is unknown whether electrical transmission requires the contribution of additional cellular structures. We investigated this question at identifiable single synaptic contacts on the zebrafish Mauthner cells, at which gap junctions coexist with specializations for neurotransmitter release and where the contact unequivocally defines the anatomical limits of a synapse. Expansion microscopy of these single contacts revealed a detailed map of the incidence and spatial distribution of proteins pertaining to various synaptic structures. Multiple gap junctions of variable size were identified by the presence of their molecular components. Remarkably, most of the synaptic contact’s surface was occupied by interleaving gap junctions and components of adherens junctions, suggesting a close functional association between these two structures. In contrast, glutamate receptors were confined to small peripheral portions of the contact, indicating that most of the synaptic area functions as an electrical synapse. Thus, our results revealed the overarching organization of an electrical synapse that operates with not one, but multiple gap junctions, in close association with structural and signaling molecules known to be components of adherens junctions. The relationship between these intercellular structures will aid in establishing the boundaries of electrical synapses found throughout animal connectomes and provide insight into the structural organization and functional diversity of electrical synapses.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Bridget M Curran, Kelsey R Nickerson ... Le Ma
    Research Article

    The dorsal funiculus in the spinal cord relays somatosensory information to the brain. It is made of T-shaped bifurcation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) sensory axons. Our previous study has shown that Slit signaling is required for proper guidance during bifurcation, but loss of Slit does not affect all DRG axons. Here, we examined the role of the extracellular molecule Netrin-1 (Ntn1). Using wholemount staining with tissue clearing, we showed that mice lacking Ntn1 had axons escaping from the dorsal funiculus at the time of bifurcation. Genetic labeling confirmed that these misprojecting axons come from DRG neurons. Single axon analysis showed that loss of Ntn1 did not affect bifurcation but rather altered turning angles. To distinguish their guidance functions, we examined mice with triple deletion of Ntn1, Slit1, and Slit2 and found a completely disorganized dorsal funiculus. Comparing mice with different genotypes using immunolabeling and single axon tracing revealed additive guidance errors, demonstrating the independent roles of Ntn1 and Slit. Moreover, the same defects were observed in embryos lacking their cognate receptors. These in vivo studies thus demonstrate the presence of multi-factorial guidance mechanisms that ensure proper formation of a common branched axonal structure during spinal cord development.